2004 PLP 1689 (CLC)

Nisar Ahmad and others v. District Judge, Muzaffargarh and others 1984 SCMR 317; Rehmat Ullah v. Ali Muhammad and another 1983 SCMR 1064; Junaid Rasheed and others v. Sultan Muhammad and others 20b0 SCMR 1525 and Khalid Mahmud and 6 others v. Maqbul Mahmood Bajwa Additional District Judge, Sialkot and another 1999 MLD 1607 ref. Muhammad Farooq Qureshi Chishti for Petitioners. S.M. Masood and Moiz Tariq for Respondents Nos. 1 to

3. Date of hearing: 25th May, 2004. An ejectment petition was instituted by the petitioners against the respondents qua Property No.2400 that the same had been transferred to their predecessor-in-interest and P.T.D. had been issued on 22-4-1973. The ejectment petition was filed on .2-9-1996. In their reply filed by the respondents, relationship of landlord and tenant was denied which gave rise to Issue No.1. Evidence was led by the parties. On 11-10-2000 the learned Rent Controller accepted the ejectment petition recording finding in favour of the petitioners. Appeal preferred by the respondents there against, however, succeeded and the finding was reversed by the learned Additional District Judge, Daska vide his judgment dated 9-7-2003 with a direction to the petitioners to establish title before the Civil Court. This is petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 qua the above mentioned appellate judgment.

2. Lengthy arguments have been addressed in this matter in view of the bulk of the material on the record.

3. It is high time to be conscious of jurisdictional sphere, bounds and limitations of writ jurisdiction. It cannot be equated with the appellate jurisdiction of the Court. There is a marked difference in the scope, extent and content of the two remedies. Resolution of disputed questions of fact does not fall within the domain of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic. Republic of Pakistan 1973 and that appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence. is also not undertaken by this Court to writ jurisdiction. I have been taken through the evidence due to variant approach of the lower Courts in order to satisfy as to whether there was any material misreading or non reading of the evidence or illegality or infirmity with the approach adopted by the Learned Additional District Judge in the matter. It was the case of the petitioners that Muhammad Ibrahim Abid, their predecessor- in-interest, has purchased Property No.2400 in open auction from the Settlement Department for which P.T.D. was issued on 22-4-1973. The ejectment petition was, however, filed against the respondents in the year 1996. According to the petitioner, the respondents were occupying the said property. This assertion of the petitioners was, disputed by the respondents and, the plea of the petitioners was controverted that the property occupied by them was not No.2400 and that the site plan brought on record by the petitioners was also incorrect. It was, thus, that issue No. 1 as to "Whether relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties" was framed by the Rent Controller with the onus on the petitioners to prove the same. As mentioned above, an attempt was made by the petitioners by producing bulky evidence to prove the issue but the same was found unsatisfactory by the Appellate Court who reversed the finding of the learned Rent Controller. In the context of the controversy it was the burden of the petitioners for prove that what was purchased in auction by their predecessor-in-interest and was transferred by the Settlement Department was the property in occupation of the respondents. Thus, a serious dispute as to title and the identity of the property had cropped up, the resolution whereof was essential before an ejectment order could be passed against the respondents. In Nisar Ahmad and others v. District Judge, Muzaffargarh And others 1984 SCMR 317 it was observed with reference to Rehmat Ullah v. Ali Muhammad and another 1983 SCMR 1064 that the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority after appraising the evidence was not open to scrutiny and reversal in Constitutional jurisdiction and that the appropriate course would have been to leave an opportunity open for the landlord to go and establish his claim in Courts of plenary jurisdiction. Similar was the approach adopted in Junaid Rasheed and others v. Sultan Muhammad and others 2000 SCMR 1525 in which controversy of almost identical nature (identification of property) had arisen and it was observed that dispute relating to title of the property could not be decided in rent proceedings or in appeals emanating therefrom. Similar was the view taken by this Court in Khalid Mahmud and 6 others v. Maqbul Mahmood Bajwa, Additional District Judge, Sialkot and another 1999 MLD 1607. In such view of the matter, the learned Additional District Judge i.e. the Appellate Authority in the present case was fully justified to reverse the order of the Rent Controller which judgment is consistent with the above cited precedents. The petition is, thus, dismissed with an option open for the petitioners to approach the Civil Court for resolution of the dispute as to their claim and the identity of the property. No order as to costs. M.A.W./I-39/L Petition dismissed